Talk:Herrerasaurus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Herrerasaurus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
WikiProject Dinosaurs This article, image or category is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
To-do list for Herrerasaurus: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:


    • size, jaw joint especially (Paul's Predatory Dinosaurs of the World estimates the type at 3.9 m long, 1.1 m tall at the hips, and 210 kg in weight; Frenguellisaurus has a 56 cm skull and an estimated weight of 350 kg).
    • Expand all sections; Herrerasaurus isn't exactly a pop culture dino, so these might be all we can add, but they should be comprehensive.
    • More on synonyms Ischisaurus and Frenguellisaurus would be good.Y Done
    • A good copyeditor needs to go thru this article. Y Done See questions below.
    • Reference formatting is inconsistent.Y Done
    • Numerous redlinks are present.
    • (as of 8th August 2007) a good idea may be a cladogram with several alternate positions of herrerasaurus marked out in a different colour (?) as the article is light on graphics. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

    Contents

    [edit] Jurassic Park?

    When was Herrerasaurus in Jurassic Park? J. Spencer 04:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

    It's not on the list in the article for either the book or the film. I'll remove the cat. Dinoguy2 15:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Size

    The artical says 'It is estimated that Herrerasaurus could reach up to 15 feet (5 meters) in length. Some fossils indicate that Herrerasaurus could grow up to 3 meters in length and 1 meter in height.' .... it makes it sound as though 3m is larger or more spectacular than 5m ............which it isn't .... :) ......... Also 15 feet isn't 5m its more like 4.6m. which size is it. ive hered 3m, 4.6m, 5m?Steveoc 86 18:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

    Well, obviously this article needs a lot of work. Feel free to improve it. Cheers! Firsfron of Ronchester 01:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    I have a 1993 National geogrpahic with a skeletal drwaing by GSP and it says 15 feet. I read some were that in GSP Preditory Dinosaurs of the World that he said 3.9m (12.7 feet) Steveoc 86 12:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Head img

    "Image:Herrerasaurus 2.jpg" has been bothering me as I look at it. I may be wrong, but most common reconstructions I've seen have had a more blunt snout- see the taxobox image, for example. Does anyone know how recent this reconstruction is? David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 01:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

    I was thinking the same thing. It doesn't really resemble any skulls or skeletals I've seen... Dinoguy2 01:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    Eh, I'm commenting it out for now. Good thing about this article is I'll be looking into more reconstructions, but from what I've seen so far it's old, erroneous, or both. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    Someone put this head image back. Should it be removed? ArthurWeasley 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Herrerasaurus is collab for July 2007

    Nominated 10th May, 2007;

    Support:

    1. Cas Liber | talk | contribs 20:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    2. J. Spencer 02:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    3. ArthurWeasley 05:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    4. M&NCenarius 08:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    5. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    6. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 01:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • A triassic dinosaur - would be terrific to get one of the early ones - great to show hypotheses over where it lies cladistically etc.

    cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 20:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    • This one is pretty straightforward, except for the "is it a theropod/sauropodomorph/saurischian/dinosaur/basal nondinosaur" thing. J. Spencer 02:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • We need more Triassic dinosaurs as GA or FAs: right now, they are quite under-represented. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Ditto to Firsfron's comments. So far we've done some good work on it, and in terms of Triassic Herrerasaurus is one of the more known. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 01:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    I just added redlinks to the to-do; as far as I'm concerned, the box is pretty accurate as to what's left. J. Spencer 13:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    Does the pop culture section include anything that the article would be worse off for not having? I was half-inclined to get rid of it (at least the video-game stuff). The wording is awkward at any rate; it hasn't done much in pop culture because it has only been really well-known since Sereno's work, not because it's from the Triassic. J. Spencer 04:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    If it must go, it must go. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    I wouldn't be fussed if it went - fairly non-notable pop cult refs anyway...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    Okay, here it is in case anyone want to look it over again:
    Herrerasaurus is not as well known to paleontologists and the general public as other dinosaurs. However one fossilized specimen of Herrerasaurus, originally found in the Patagonia region of Argentina, is displayed at the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History. This is in part due to the age of the fossils: Herrerasaurus lived in the Triassic, before most other dinosaurs existed. Fossils of Herrerasaurus were not described until 1963, and until recently, this genus remained relatively unknown to the general public. As a result, its appearances in popular culture have been limited. However, Herrerasaurus does appear in several recent video games. Among these are the Zoo Tycoon and Jurassic Park game franchises. J. Spencer 18:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    Classification: The only parts of this article that I think are not straightforward and clear are those dealing with classification, particularly the third paragraph under History. One concern is that Langer (2004) and Benton and Langer (2006) actually find the basal saurischian position to be most parsimonious, which is shared with the recent Dromomeron paper (which oddly omits Eoraptor). J. Spencer 02:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Wrap-up

    Going forward, there are still five redlinks, a couple of places for citations, and the usual need for copyediting. The needed citations and redlinks would keep it from a GA, but I think that with the cites and two or three of the redlinks filled in, it could pass. J. Spencer 00:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

    cladogram anyone....good idea or straying into OR? Or just a graphic representation of existing hypotheses...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] GA Pass

    This article easily meets the GA criteria. It is very readable. The coverage of the topic is very good. I particularly enjoyed the NPOV discussion of the history of the classification debate, which is what makes this such an interesting animal. The research for the paleobiology and paleoecology sections was also impressive. The images are good, but you might want to select a larger size than the standard thumb size for the image accompaning the classification section. It is a nice image but you can hardly make it out. I am hard pressed to come up with many other suggestions to improve the article, but I would suggest getting rid of the red links. The are distracting If you don't plan to create the article yourself in the next few weeks just de-link the names. You can always add a link back if someone someday creates the appropriate article. Rusty Cashman 06:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

    Thanks for the review, Rusty. I've just blue-ified one of the links, and will try to blue up the rest tomorrow. I will also enlarge the image a little. If you have further suggestions for article improvement, please do not hesitate to speak up. Thanks again, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Questions from the copy-editor

    [edit] Head size

    • "Its head measured up to at least 56 centimeters (1.8 ft) long, in a large specimen... "

    Not sure what is meant by "up to at least". If this was a single specimen, shouldn't a single measurement be known for the head size? Perhaps the intent is that the heads of these guys varied, with a range of (what least estimated size? up to 56 cm in the large specimen, and possibly more in as-yet-undiscovered specimens. Let me know what info is known about the range of sizes. If this is the only head specimen, then that would need to be stated accordingly (plus whatever ranges might be estimated, if any.) Or perhaps, "measured up to as much as 56 cm, the measurement of one large..." Existing wording is unclear. Thanks.

    DinoData has a translation of the original paper on Frenguellisaurus, which explicitly states the skull was 56 cm. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • But it also names the specimen, not as a Herrerasaurus, but as:

    Systematics

    Frenguellisaurus gen. nov.

    Etymology

    In honor of Dr. Joaquín Frenguelli, who realized an important paleontological and geological work in the Triassic Ischigualasto-Villa Unión Valley.

    Typespecies

    Frenguellisaurus ischigualastensis.

    This specimen is compared to a number of other species, including Herrerasaurus. On my reading, the head measurement does not belong to the article's subject at all and should be deleted. Please review the source document and see if you reach the same conclusion. Other editors, also please do so. Thanks, Unimaginative Username 06:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    Frenguellisaurus is a junior synonym: it has been considered the same genus as Herrerasaurus since the 1990s. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

    Have you a source for that statement? Should the article mention such synonyms? I'm not a saurophile (sic), so not familiar with the technical standards for such articles. However, if another lay reader, like this one, were to check the source, they might feel the same confusion. Just food for thought. Unimaginative Username 21:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

    The statement is already in the article, with sources: "Reig named a second dinosaur from these rocks in the same publication as Herrerasaurus;[1] this dinosaur, Ischisaurus cattoi, is now considered a junior synonym and a juvenile of Herrerasaurus.[8] Two other partial skeletons, with skull material, were named Frenguellisaurus ischigualastensis by Fernando Novas in 1986,[21] but this species too is now thought to be a synonym.[8]" Firsfron of Ronchester 01:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for clarifying. My failure to notice that was partly due to to the habit of proofreading for grammar, punctuation, etc. without really "reading" the article, just as a stenographer can take dictation faster if writing or typing without trying to understand what's being said. Also due to copy-editing a paragraph or a few sentences at a time, revising, do a few more, etc. Sorry to have taken up your extra time. In atonement, I've revised the entire paragraph on physical characteristics for what I perceive as both clarity and smooth readability. Take a look, see how you like it now, and let me know. Unimaginative Username 07:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    No need to apologize; I completely understand, having copyedited articles before. There's a difference between reading for content and reading for clarity. Looking for typos and poor grammar is not the same thing as reading for comprehension. The copyedits you made to the description look great, and I am delighted to see how this article is turning out. You've been just great. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Aw, shucks. Unimaginative Username 03:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    Y DoneUnimaginative Username (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

    _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    [edit] Fenestra/e number

    • "The rear of the lower jaw also had fenestra." I changed to "fenestrae", assuming that the jaw had at least one pair. If there really was only a single opening, it should go back to the singular "fenestra". Advise.
    A fenestra on each side. Fenestrae, as you edited the article to read, is definitely correct. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    Y DoneUnimaginative Username (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] San Juan

    • "first noticed its fossils in outcrops near San Juan". The lead makes it clear that this happened in Argentina, but San Juan appears to be both a city and a province in Argentina. Which it is should be specified. "San Juan, Argentina" or "San Juan Province, Argentina". Linking is optional. Unimaginative Username (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    It's near the city, in the province. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    Y Done Unimaginative Username 05:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    [edit] Synapomorphies

    • "However, only one cranial and seven postcranial synapomorphies are actually supported by the study of Herrerasaurus, and new additional ones were discovered.[3]" The meaning of the last phrase is not clear to me. Aside from the fact that "new additional" is redundant, which can be fixed easily, the main thrust of the sentence is an "only": "... only one X and seven Y", so the phrase "and new ones discovered" (showing additional) does not mesh with the "only" part (perhaps should be "but new ones were discoverd"). Also, does "ones" refer to "new fossils found" or to "new synapomorphies found"? I don't know the facts. If you can specify these, I'll re-write the sentence appropriately. Unimaginative Username (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what this was supposed to mean. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    The source appears not to be available online. Most likely is to delete the last phrase, but it would be better if someone could read the source and provide the correct info. No further action from this editor otherwise. Unimaginative Username 05:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

    Pardon my denseness, but I'm still not getting it. Current revision:
    The monophyly of dinosaurs was explicitly proposed in the 1970s by Bakker,[37][38] and nine cranial and about fifty postcranial synapomorphies (common anatomical traits derived from the common ancestor) have been listed. However, an extensive study of Herrerasaurus by Sereno indicates that only one cranial and seven postcranial synapomorphies in Bakker's original list are actually supported while additional synapomorphies were discovered.[3]

    From a base of zero knowledge, here's what I get:

    1. Bakker says they're mono.
    2. Bakker (at least, I think it's Bakker; passive voice makes it uncertain) lists 9+50 synaps.
    3. Sereno looks closely and can verify only 1+7 of Bakker's list of synaps.
    4.  ? Now I'm lost. while additional synapomorphies were discovered. Additional synaps have been discovered, but not verified? Kindly spell out in very simple terms what's going on with the synaps since Sereno's study, and then we'll worry about forming it into brilliant prose. Also, whether the original proposed 9+50 were exclusively Bakker's, or others contributed to the list after Bakker proposed the mono hypothesis. Thanks, Unimaginative Username 04:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


    [edit] Herbivores vs. carnivores

    • "Herbivores were much more abundant than carnivores .... They were much more abundant than early ornithischian dinosaurs like Pisanosaurus." But the article on Ornithischia says that they too were herbivores. So, we have "herbivores were more abundant than herbivores" (in effect). Should it be that this particular dinosaur (the subject of the article) was more abundant than this particular herbivore (Pisanosaurus)? Again, advise the facts, and I'll revise. Thanks. Unimaginative Username (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    I think the writer was trying to state that herbivorous non-dinosaurs were more abundant than ornithischians (which were also herbivorous). Firsfron of Ronchester 02:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    I have little knowledge of this topic. Following aetosaur/archosaur/dinosaur got a little bit circular for this user. Perhaps the distinction was specifically to the beaked, or bird-like, ornithischians? (Non-beaked > beaked) As above, best practice would be for an involved editor to check the source and edit accordingly. If I can be of any help in revising according to whatever is found there, let me know. Unimaginative Username 05:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    UI, it is really great having someone unfamiliar with the material going over this article. After all, the article is supposed to be written for people who are unfamiliar with the material, so if something is unclear, it should be made clear. I'm really glad you are pointing out everything which needs clarifying.
    The ornithischians are "bird-hipped" dinosaurs, but, aside from the presence of beaks in many of them, they aren't particularly birdlike otherwise: the saurischian ("lizard-hipped") dinosaurs are the ones which gave rise to the birds. I'm not exactly sure what this sentence was supposed to mean. I think I will ask the original author of that area for clarification.
    Once again, I appreciate your patience and all your work on this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Your first paragraph was my POV of copy-editing in a nutshell. Well said! :) Agree with asking the original author. Let me know if I can be of help with the appropriate revision when the facts are in. Unimaginative Username 07:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    I've added some clarifications to the two litigious sentences. Let me know if they make sense now. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, it's much clearer now. Except... and therefore more likely prey to Herrerasaurus than the early dinosaurs.. I'm guessing that what was meant was "and therefore more likely to fall prey to Herrerasaurus than the early dinosaurs", since H. was a meat-eater. Or "more likely prey for H." Probably not "pray to Herrerasaurus (not to eat them)". Are either of these correct statements? Unimaginative Username 03:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    Prey for Herrerasaurus. Definitely not "Pray to Herrerasaurus. All praise the mighty Herrerasaurus; praise him with great praise. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 05:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    Y Done, with an additional disambiguating "were" added, in accord with Murphy's Law of Copy-Editing: "If any phrase can possibly be interpreted incorrectly, it will be". "more likely prey for H. than the early dinosaurs would be", as opposed to misreading "more likely prey for H. than they would be for the early dinosarus". (Yes, I know that H. was one of the early dinosaurs, but the policy is "Lead the reader by the nose to the correct meaning, and take no prisoners!") p. s. If I were food and say a 4- (or maybe 6-) meter dinosaur coming, I would pray (while running). Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Automatic addition of "class=GA"

    A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, BOT Giggabot (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Hands on drawing

    Are the hands on the drawing under the classifiction section too pronated? If so, It'll be fixed. Funkynusayri (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Herrerasaurus is collab for feb 08

    Nominated December 7, 2007;

    Support:

    1. Spawn Man (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    2. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    3. Dropzink (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Nice to get a Triassic dino to FA quality and most of the hard work's been done so far. :) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


    So, what do we want to do with the article now that we've got it again? We've had two outside editors give it a shine. The redlinks are gone and everything has been referenced. What do we think needs to be done? J. Spencer (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

    • Not much is being done to this article in spite of its nomination. Is it top notch already? Funkynusayri (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    It's a good article, and a Good Article, but it's missing something I can't put my finger on. It's certainly not far off. J. Spencer (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    My thoughts exactly. Funny how sometimes articels 'gell' really nicely and other times tehy just don't...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)